"It was an important part of my treatment": a qualitative study of Norwegian breast Cancer patients' experiences with mainstreamed genetic testing.

BACKGROUND: In South-Eastern Norway, genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 is offered to breast cancer patients by their treating surgeon or oncologist. Genetic counselling from a geneticist or a genetic counsellor is offered only to those who test positive for a pathogenic variant or have a family history of cancer. This practice is termed "mainstreamed genetic testing". The aim of this study was to learn about patients' experience of this healthcare service. METHODS: Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 22 breast cancer patients who had been diagnosed during the first half of 2016 or 2017 at one regional and one university hospital and who had been offered testing by their treating physician. A six-phase thematic approach was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The participants had varied experiences of how and when testing was offered. Three main themes emerged from the analysis: 1. informational and communicational needs and challenges during a chaotic time, 2. the value of genetic testing and 3. the importance of standardised routines for mainstreamed genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the shock of their diagnosis and the varying experiences they had in respect of how and when testing was offered, all of the participants emphasised that genetic testing had been an important part of their diagnosis and treatment. Our results indicate that there is a need for continuous collaboration between geneticists, surgeons, oncologists and laboratory specialists in order to establish simple and robust routines so as to ensure that all eligible breast cancer patients are offered testing at a point when the test result can have an impact on treatment.

Mainstreamed genetic testing of breast cancer patients in two hospitals in South Eastern Norway.

Studies have shown that a significant number of eligible breast cancer patients are not offered genetic testing or referral to genetic counseling. To increase access to genetic testing in South Eastern Norway, testing has since 2014 been offered directly to breast cancer patients by surgeons and oncologists. This practice is termed "mainstreamed genetic testing". The aim of this study was to investigate to what extent patients in South Eastern Norway are offered testing. Three hundred and sixty one patients diagnosed in 2016 and 2017 at one regional and one university hospital in South Eastern Norway were included. Data on whether the patients fulfilled the criteria, whether they had been offered testing and if they were tested were collected. In total, 26.6% (96/361) fulfilled the criteria for testing. Seventy five percent (69/92) of these were offered testing, and 71.7% (66/92) were tested. At the university hospital, 90.2% (37/41) of eligible patients were offered testing, and at the regional hospital 62.7% (32/51). Fifty two percent (12/23) of eligible patient not offered testing were younger than 50 years at time of diagnosis. As many as 95.4% (125/131) of all patients who were offered testing, wanted to be tested. The majority of patients who fulfilled the criteria were offered testing, supporting the practice of mainstreamed genetic testing. There were nevertheless differences in rates of testing between the hospitals that affected all groups of patients, indicating that genetic testing may not be equally accessible to all patients. We suggest that efforts should be made to increase awareness and improve routines for genetic testing of breast cancer patients in Norway.

LTX-109 is a novel agent for nasal decolonization of methicillin-resistant and -sensitive Staphylococcus aureus.

Nasal decolonization has a proven effect on the prevention of severe Staphylococcus aureus infections and the control of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). However, rising rates of resistance to antibiotics highlight the need for new substances for nasal decolonization. LTX-109 is a broad-spectrum, fast-acting bactericidal antimicrobial drug for topical treatment, which causes membrane disruption and cell lysis. This mechanism of action is not associated with cross-resistance and has a low propensity for development of resistance. In the present study, persistent nasal MRSA and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) carriers were treated for 3 days with vehicle or with 1%, 2%, or 5% LTX-109. A significant effect on nasal decolonization was observed already after 2 days of LTX-109 treatment in subjects treated with 2% or 5% LTX-109 compared to vehicle (P ≤ 0.0012 by Dunnett's test). No safety issues were noted during the 9-week follow-up period. Minimal reversible epithelial lesions were observed in the nasal cavity. The systemic exposure was very low, with a maximum concentration of drug in plasma (Cmax) at 1 to 2 h postdosing (3.72 to 11.7 ng/ml). One week after treatment initiation, LTX-109 was not detectable in any subject. Intranasal treatment of S. aureus with LTX-109 is safe and reduces the bacterial load already after a single day of treatment. Hence, LTX-109 has potential as a new and effective antimicrobial agent with a low propensity of resistance development that can prevent infections by MSSA/MRSA during hospitalization. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01158235.).

Standardized care plans in Swedish health care: their quality and the extent to which they are used.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the quality of standardized care plans and the extent to which they are used within Swedish in-hospital somatic care. Further, to examine the quality of the knowledge summaries on which existing standardized care plans were supposed to be based. DESIGN: Submitted documents were reviewed with study-specific protocols. SETTING: A national survey, based on a structured selection of Swedish hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 25 Swedish hospitals participated, and were asked to submit all documents in use that were labelled standardized care plan. RESULTS: Only 4% (34 out of 782) of the reviewed documents fulfilled the criteria for being a standardized care plan. None of the 34 knowledge summaries (an accompanying document with a compilation of scientific facts and reliable experience) was evidence-based. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of knowledge regarding what a standardized care plan is, and how such a document should emanate from evidence-based knowledge. Our results raise the question of how recent developments in research are used to create standardized care plans for the best possible care. In the process of developing standardized care plans it is important to acknowledge that staff who develop these plans need scientific training and experience. Standardized care plans are in the early stages of development, and at this stage it seems appropriate to initiate a discussion regarding possible cooperation at national level when developing standardized care plans for certain large groups of patients suffering from specific diseases, or undergoing the same treatment.